Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Lini Wollenberg Julie Nash and Meryl Richards
Low Emissions Development Flagship CCAFS
Low Emissions Development
Evidence for reducing emissions
from food value chains of
smallholders in Africa 15 March 2016
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
ldquo holding the increase in the global
average temperature to well below 2 degC above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit
the temperature increase to 15 degCrdquo
UNFCCC
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Mali
Zambia
Uganda
Ethiopia
Tanzania
Kenya
Malawi
Liberia
Ghana
Senegal
Inclusion of agriculture in mitigation targets
Slide courtesy of M Richards
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Future food needs will increase emissions
bull To meet food demands of the 9 billion emissions must increase
bull But emissions donrsquot need to increase proportionally use LED to bend the curve
bull Priority 1 Reduce GHG unit product (emissions intensity)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock intensification reduces emissions intensity up to 20X for beef 300X for dairy
(without considering LUC
feed)
bull Improve digestibility of feed
bull Reduce numbers of animals
000
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
750 850 950 1050 1150
me
than
e -
kg C
O2
k
g p
rote
in p
rod
uce
d
metabolisable energy (MJkg DM)
developed
developing
BRICS
Pastoralist farmers in Chad
Herrero et al 2013 PNAS
Livestock GHG efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Nitrogen Use Efficiency
bull Increase efficiency of N fertilizer uptake by plants eg timing rates deep placement microdosing
bull Increasing NUE from 19 to 75 decreases emissions intensity by 56 (127 to 71 g N2O-Nkg N uptake)
Groenigen et al nd
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Water use efficiency
bull Alternate wetting and drying can reduce CH4 emissions up to 38 and reduce fossil fuel use
bull Unless irrigation introduced
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Oenema et al 2014
Value chain efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Palm 2000 14
bull Priority 2 Sequester carbon in soil and biomass to offset emissions includes reduced burning and avoided conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Most synergistic way to help meet countriesrsquo NDCs or 2degC target
Sequestering carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock systems - improving feeding animal and herd management
pastureland management
bull Perennial crops- transitioning annual crops or degraded land avoided
conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Cereal crops- building soils through ISFM or CA nutrient efficiencies
through technologies such as fertilizer deep placement BNI in crops
bull Rice systems- alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or shorter duration rice
bull Post harvest loss reduction
FtF already produces mitigation co-benefits
2015 CCAFS-USAID GCC-FtF survey shows potential
USAID programs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
ldquo holding the increase in the global
average temperature to well below 2 degC above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit
the temperature increase to 15 degCrdquo
UNFCCC
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Mali
Zambia
Uganda
Ethiopia
Tanzania
Kenya
Malawi
Liberia
Ghana
Senegal
Inclusion of agriculture in mitigation targets
Slide courtesy of M Richards
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Future food needs will increase emissions
bull To meet food demands of the 9 billion emissions must increase
bull But emissions donrsquot need to increase proportionally use LED to bend the curve
bull Priority 1 Reduce GHG unit product (emissions intensity)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock intensification reduces emissions intensity up to 20X for beef 300X for dairy
(without considering LUC
feed)
bull Improve digestibility of feed
bull Reduce numbers of animals
000
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
750 850 950 1050 1150
me
than
e -
kg C
O2
k
g p
rote
in p
rod
uce
d
metabolisable energy (MJkg DM)
developed
developing
BRICS
Pastoralist farmers in Chad
Herrero et al 2013 PNAS
Livestock GHG efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Nitrogen Use Efficiency
bull Increase efficiency of N fertilizer uptake by plants eg timing rates deep placement microdosing
bull Increasing NUE from 19 to 75 decreases emissions intensity by 56 (127 to 71 g N2O-Nkg N uptake)
Groenigen et al nd
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Water use efficiency
bull Alternate wetting and drying can reduce CH4 emissions up to 38 and reduce fossil fuel use
bull Unless irrigation introduced
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Oenema et al 2014
Value chain efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Palm 2000 14
bull Priority 2 Sequester carbon in soil and biomass to offset emissions includes reduced burning and avoided conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Most synergistic way to help meet countriesrsquo NDCs or 2degC target
Sequestering carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock systems - improving feeding animal and herd management
pastureland management
bull Perennial crops- transitioning annual crops or degraded land avoided
conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Cereal crops- building soils through ISFM or CA nutrient efficiencies
through technologies such as fertilizer deep placement BNI in crops
bull Rice systems- alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or shorter duration rice
bull Post harvest loss reduction
FtF already produces mitigation co-benefits
2015 CCAFS-USAID GCC-FtF survey shows potential
USAID programs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Mali
Zambia
Uganda
Ethiopia
Tanzania
Kenya
Malawi
Liberia
Ghana
Senegal
Inclusion of agriculture in mitigation targets
Slide courtesy of M Richards
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Future food needs will increase emissions
bull To meet food demands of the 9 billion emissions must increase
bull But emissions donrsquot need to increase proportionally use LED to bend the curve
bull Priority 1 Reduce GHG unit product (emissions intensity)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock intensification reduces emissions intensity up to 20X for beef 300X for dairy
(without considering LUC
feed)
bull Improve digestibility of feed
bull Reduce numbers of animals
000
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
750 850 950 1050 1150
me
than
e -
kg C
O2
k
g p
rote
in p
rod
uce
d
metabolisable energy (MJkg DM)
developed
developing
BRICS
Pastoralist farmers in Chad
Herrero et al 2013 PNAS
Livestock GHG efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Nitrogen Use Efficiency
bull Increase efficiency of N fertilizer uptake by plants eg timing rates deep placement microdosing
bull Increasing NUE from 19 to 75 decreases emissions intensity by 56 (127 to 71 g N2O-Nkg N uptake)
Groenigen et al nd
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Water use efficiency
bull Alternate wetting and drying can reduce CH4 emissions up to 38 and reduce fossil fuel use
bull Unless irrigation introduced
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Oenema et al 2014
Value chain efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Palm 2000 14
bull Priority 2 Sequester carbon in soil and biomass to offset emissions includes reduced burning and avoided conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Most synergistic way to help meet countriesrsquo NDCs or 2degC target
Sequestering carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock systems - improving feeding animal and herd management
pastureland management
bull Perennial crops- transitioning annual crops or degraded land avoided
conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Cereal crops- building soils through ISFM or CA nutrient efficiencies
through technologies such as fertilizer deep placement BNI in crops
bull Rice systems- alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or shorter duration rice
bull Post harvest loss reduction
FtF already produces mitigation co-benefits
2015 CCAFS-USAID GCC-FtF survey shows potential
USAID programs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Future food needs will increase emissions
bull To meet food demands of the 9 billion emissions must increase
bull But emissions donrsquot need to increase proportionally use LED to bend the curve
bull Priority 1 Reduce GHG unit product (emissions intensity)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock intensification reduces emissions intensity up to 20X for beef 300X for dairy
(without considering LUC
feed)
bull Improve digestibility of feed
bull Reduce numbers of animals
000
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
750 850 950 1050 1150
me
than
e -
kg C
O2
k
g p
rote
in p
rod
uce
d
metabolisable energy (MJkg DM)
developed
developing
BRICS
Pastoralist farmers in Chad
Herrero et al 2013 PNAS
Livestock GHG efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Nitrogen Use Efficiency
bull Increase efficiency of N fertilizer uptake by plants eg timing rates deep placement microdosing
bull Increasing NUE from 19 to 75 decreases emissions intensity by 56 (127 to 71 g N2O-Nkg N uptake)
Groenigen et al nd
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Water use efficiency
bull Alternate wetting and drying can reduce CH4 emissions up to 38 and reduce fossil fuel use
bull Unless irrigation introduced
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Oenema et al 2014
Value chain efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Palm 2000 14
bull Priority 2 Sequester carbon in soil and biomass to offset emissions includes reduced burning and avoided conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Most synergistic way to help meet countriesrsquo NDCs or 2degC target
Sequestering carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock systems - improving feeding animal and herd management
pastureland management
bull Perennial crops- transitioning annual crops or degraded land avoided
conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Cereal crops- building soils through ISFM or CA nutrient efficiencies
through technologies such as fertilizer deep placement BNI in crops
bull Rice systems- alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or shorter duration rice
bull Post harvest loss reduction
FtF already produces mitigation co-benefits
2015 CCAFS-USAID GCC-FtF survey shows potential
USAID programs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock intensification reduces emissions intensity up to 20X for beef 300X for dairy
(without considering LUC
feed)
bull Improve digestibility of feed
bull Reduce numbers of animals
000
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
750 850 950 1050 1150
me
than
e -
kg C
O2
k
g p
rote
in p
rod
uce
d
metabolisable energy (MJkg DM)
developed
developing
BRICS
Pastoralist farmers in Chad
Herrero et al 2013 PNAS
Livestock GHG efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Nitrogen Use Efficiency
bull Increase efficiency of N fertilizer uptake by plants eg timing rates deep placement microdosing
bull Increasing NUE from 19 to 75 decreases emissions intensity by 56 (127 to 71 g N2O-Nkg N uptake)
Groenigen et al nd
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Water use efficiency
bull Alternate wetting and drying can reduce CH4 emissions up to 38 and reduce fossil fuel use
bull Unless irrigation introduced
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Oenema et al 2014
Value chain efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Palm 2000 14
bull Priority 2 Sequester carbon in soil and biomass to offset emissions includes reduced burning and avoided conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Most synergistic way to help meet countriesrsquo NDCs or 2degC target
Sequestering carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock systems - improving feeding animal and herd management
pastureland management
bull Perennial crops- transitioning annual crops or degraded land avoided
conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Cereal crops- building soils through ISFM or CA nutrient efficiencies
through technologies such as fertilizer deep placement BNI in crops
bull Rice systems- alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or shorter duration rice
bull Post harvest loss reduction
FtF already produces mitigation co-benefits
2015 CCAFS-USAID GCC-FtF survey shows potential
USAID programs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Nitrogen Use Efficiency
bull Increase efficiency of N fertilizer uptake by plants eg timing rates deep placement microdosing
bull Increasing NUE from 19 to 75 decreases emissions intensity by 56 (127 to 71 g N2O-Nkg N uptake)
Groenigen et al nd
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Water use efficiency
bull Alternate wetting and drying can reduce CH4 emissions up to 38 and reduce fossil fuel use
bull Unless irrigation introduced
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Oenema et al 2014
Value chain efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Palm 2000 14
bull Priority 2 Sequester carbon in soil and biomass to offset emissions includes reduced burning and avoided conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Most synergistic way to help meet countriesrsquo NDCs or 2degC target
Sequestering carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock systems - improving feeding animal and herd management
pastureland management
bull Perennial crops- transitioning annual crops or degraded land avoided
conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Cereal crops- building soils through ISFM or CA nutrient efficiencies
through technologies such as fertilizer deep placement BNI in crops
bull Rice systems- alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or shorter duration rice
bull Post harvest loss reduction
FtF already produces mitigation co-benefits
2015 CCAFS-USAID GCC-FtF survey shows potential
USAID programs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Water use efficiency
bull Alternate wetting and drying can reduce CH4 emissions up to 38 and reduce fossil fuel use
bull Unless irrigation introduced
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Oenema et al 2014
Value chain efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Palm 2000 14
bull Priority 2 Sequester carbon in soil and biomass to offset emissions includes reduced burning and avoided conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Most synergistic way to help meet countriesrsquo NDCs or 2degC target
Sequestering carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock systems - improving feeding animal and herd management
pastureland management
bull Perennial crops- transitioning annual crops or degraded land avoided
conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Cereal crops- building soils through ISFM or CA nutrient efficiencies
through technologies such as fertilizer deep placement BNI in crops
bull Rice systems- alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or shorter duration rice
bull Post harvest loss reduction
FtF already produces mitigation co-benefits
2015 CCAFS-USAID GCC-FtF survey shows potential
USAID programs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Oenema et al 2014
Value chain efficiency
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Palm 2000 14
bull Priority 2 Sequester carbon in soil and biomass to offset emissions includes reduced burning and avoided conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Most synergistic way to help meet countriesrsquo NDCs or 2degC target
Sequestering carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock systems - improving feeding animal and herd management
pastureland management
bull Perennial crops- transitioning annual crops or degraded land avoided
conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Cereal crops- building soils through ISFM or CA nutrient efficiencies
through technologies such as fertilizer deep placement BNI in crops
bull Rice systems- alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or shorter duration rice
bull Post harvest loss reduction
FtF already produces mitigation co-benefits
2015 CCAFS-USAID GCC-FtF survey shows potential
USAID programs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Palm 2000 14
bull Priority 2 Sequester carbon in soil and biomass to offset emissions includes reduced burning and avoided conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Most synergistic way to help meet countriesrsquo NDCs or 2degC target
Sequestering carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock systems - improving feeding animal and herd management
pastureland management
bull Perennial crops- transitioning annual crops or degraded land avoided
conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Cereal crops- building soils through ISFM or CA nutrient efficiencies
through technologies such as fertilizer deep placement BNI in crops
bull Rice systems- alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or shorter duration rice
bull Post harvest loss reduction
FtF already produces mitigation co-benefits
2015 CCAFS-USAID GCC-FtF survey shows potential
USAID programs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Livestock systems - improving feeding animal and herd management
pastureland management
bull Perennial crops- transitioning annual crops or degraded land avoided
conversion of high carbon landscapes
bull Cereal crops- building soils through ISFM or CA nutrient efficiencies
through technologies such as fertilizer deep placement BNI in crops
bull Rice systems- alternate wetting and drying (AWD) or shorter duration rice
bull Post harvest loss reduction
FtF already produces mitigation co-benefits
2015 CCAFS-USAID GCC-FtF survey shows potential
USAID programs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK- REGAL- KENYA
Feed and herd management improvement
bull Yield increase 50
bull Emissions reduction mostly from reducing
numbers of animals (10 reduction)
bull Some from improved feed (minor)
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Cattle 34
ndash Sheep 40
ndash Goats 40
ndash Camels 33 EI = GHG Emissionsunit product
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LIVESTOCK
The opportunity
bull Largest source of emissions in Africa
Huge scope for further action eg
bull Increase feed quality
bull Improve breeds
Constraints
bull Social and economic constraints to new
practices especially for extensive systems
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREALS - ADVANCE II GHANA
Reduced tillage crop residue burning
reduction nutrient management AWD
bull Yield increases of 51 - 149
bull AWD in rice - reduced emissions 43
bull Reduced burning and residue increased
SOM
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 30 to
10
Emissions intensity decreased
ndash Maize 117
ndash Soybean 267
ndash Irrigated rice 66
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
CEREAL ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Soil carbon offsets emissions from N fertilizer
bull Irrigated rice offers permanent reductions
Further action possible
- Manure management
- Increase NUE
- Short duration irrigated rice
Constraints
bull Soil carbon is reversible takes time to accumulate
variable
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
LANDSCAPE- BLA ZAMBIA
Better Life Alliance ndashlandscape-level GHG mitigation benefits
Preventing shrubland burning (on roughly 395000 ha) and shrubland
conversion (on roughly 15500 ha)
Newly established Gliricidia agroforestry (6500 hectares)
Organic maize residue management manure inputs
reduced fertilizer
bull Maize yields increased 13 (17 to 19tha)
bull Post-harvest losses reduced from 5 to 3
bull Emissions intensity decreased for maize by 213
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS ANALYSISThe opportunity
bull Highest mitigation impact especially in short-term
bull Combining FtF and GCC initiatives
ndash Wild certification Shrubland protection tied to agricultural activities
Further action possible
bull More NUE
Constraints
bull Disadoption of Gliricidia
bull Trade-offs in land available for other food production
bull Carbon sequestration is reversible
bull Risk of creating burden on farmers for maintaining carbon
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Conclusion
bull USAID programs have mitigation co-benefits emissions intensities and absolute emissions
bull Identify LED outcomes and communicate to countriesbull What more can be done
ndash Further reduce emissions efficiencies relative to yieldsndash Seek absolute reductions to meet climate targets including carbon
sequestrationndash Assess economic and social feasibility of implementing practices at
scalendash Prioritize practices applicable at large scalesndash Competitiveness with other options and need for rapid uptake will be
major constraints so incentives and support beyond the farm level needed
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull IPCC 4th and 5th Assessment reports IPCC Good practice guidelines
bull CCAFS and GACSA Practice briefs httpsccafscgiarorgpublicationscsa-
practices-and-technologies
bull Mitigation Options Tool httpsccafscgiarorgmitigation-option-tool-
agricultureVubD4scbI4E
bull FAOSTAT emissions database httpfaostat3faoorgdownloadG1GTE
bull FAO MICCA website
bull FAO Tackling Livestock
httpwwwfaoorgdocrep018i3437ei3437e00htm
bull Strategies for mitigating climate change in agriculture
httpwwwclimatefocuscomsitesdefaultfilesstrategies_for_mitigating_cli
mate_change_in_agriculturepdf
GENERAL RESOURCES
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Quantifying emissions - samplesccafscgiarorg
bull Identifying secure and low carbon food production practices A case study
Bellarby et al 2014 httpsccafscgiarorgesnode51558VubF_scbI4E
bull Does conservation agriculture deliver climate change mitigation through
soil carbon sequestration in tropical agro-ecosystems Powlson et al 2016
bull Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation Powlson
et al 2014
bull Current and future nitrous oxide emissions from African agriculture ndash
Hickman et al 2011
httpwwwmillenniumvillagesorguploadsReportPaperCurrent-and-future-
nitrous-oxide-emissions-from-African-agriculturepdf
bull Science to support climate smart agricultural development (East Africa)
httpwwwfaoorg3a-i4167epdf
SOME SCIENCE
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull Small group discussions (20 min)
ndash What practices could you support to improve LED outcomes while still prioritizing FtF goals
ndash What further information or evidence would you need to achieve these outcomes
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PERENNIALS- AGP-AMDe ETHIOPIA
5 million new coffee tree seedlings provided to farmers
Perennial Renovations- Increasing coffee density and replace worn
perennial plants
bull Carbon sequestration from increasing density from 2500 to
3300ha- 17 tCO2e per hectare
bull Increased yields increased 41
bull Post-harvest loss reduced 18 to 11
bull Emissions intensity decreased 34
New perennial expansion - transitioning annual to perennials crops
and improved practices - sequester significant carbon (-134 tCO2e
per hectare) in soils and above ground biomass
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
IPCC emissions factors and uncertainty levels
Emissions source
Range of emissions factors for tropical conditions Unit
Uncertaintyerror for Tier 1 emissions
factors
Biomass C storage 12 to 228 t Chayr 6-126Relative stock change in soil C
048 to 144 t Chayr 26 (7 - 61)
N2O fertilizer 001 kg N2O-Nkg N 0003 - 030
CH4 paddy rice 13 kg CH4haday 08-220
CH4 Enteric fermentation - dairy cattle
46 to 72 kg CH4headyr 30-50
CH4 manure 1 to 2 kg CH4head yr 30
N2O urine 032 to 157kg N1000 kg animal massday
50
if scaling factors used ranges from 035 to 134 warm wetwarm moist
Slide E Wollenberg
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
Photo Credit Goes Here
Photo credit NameOrganization
John Goopy Polly Ericson International Livestock Research Institute
LED- REDUCING THE IMPACT OF
LIVESTOCK GHG EMISSIONS
THROUGH IMPROVED PRODUCTIVITY
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
THREE THEMES
Setting the Stage ndash Can we reduce total GHG emissions from Livestock
production systems Is it just as good to reduce emissions intensities(EI)
Measurement Mitigation hellipor Both
DairyMixed Smallholder Systems Opportunities and Challenges
Pastoralist Systems what can we do
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
1 CAN WE REDUCE LIVESTOCK GHGS
bull YES ndash BUT WE MAY NOT WANT TO
bull MAJORITY OF LIVESTOCK GHGS COME FROM ENTERIC
FERMENTATION ndash OBLIGATORY DIGESTIVE PROCESS OF
RUMINANTS
- SUPRESS METHANOGENSIS OR GET RID OF RUMINANTS
bull Why not Digestion Integration Protein Diversification
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHAT ABOUT EMISSIONS INTENSITY
bull Emissions are driven by INTAKE
bull Emissions Intensity (EI) is driven by ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY
bull INTAKE is used by the animal for two things BODY MAINTENANCE and
GROWTHPRODUCTION
The Maintenance requirement is constant AND CANrsquoT BE TURNED OFF
Ruminants in ldquoWesternrdquo systems may use as much as 50 of food eaten
for ldquoproductionrdquo For ruminants in SSA this may be as little as 10 or
even 5 - POOR NUTRITION and LITTLE of it
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MEASUREMENT DOESNrsquoT PROVIDE MITIGATION BUT IT DOES
ALLOW US TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT IS DONE-
AND PROVIDES CLUES FOR WHAT MAY WORK
bull What we knowbull No measurements of GHGs and very little of animal productivity in SSAbull Feed and diets are very different to EuropeUSAbull Important assumptions in models are largely violated in Smallholder
systemsbull What we know we donrsquot know
bull Animal productivity parametersbull Feed parametersbull Fate of animals and productsbull The effects of sub-maintenance feeding on GHG emissions
bull What we need (to know)bull Quantitative empirical knowledge of animals husbandry feeds marketsbull This is why (Next slide)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
WHY WE NEED EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Why are the emission factors incorrect
bull Limited datasetbullModels use emission factors from other regionsbullThese other regions have different climate soils management animal breeds etc
0
200
400
600
800
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pred
ictedCO
2ekgha
MeasuredCO2ekgha
MaizeZimbabwe
MaizeChina
MaizeTanzania
TeaKenya
VegetablesKenyaorTanzania
Prediction error for smallholder cropping systems using the ldquocool farm toolrdquo
Pred
icted b
y CFT (C
O2 e kg h
a-1
season
-1)
Measured (CO2e kg ha-1 season-1)
Richards et al in prep
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
2 DAIRYMIXED SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
bull WHY A Mitigation Potential (MP)
bull MP = LIVESTOCK (Nos X Size) Effective intervention(s) Uptake
bull E African Smallholder systems have the greatest MP because
bull Densely populated with Large cattle herd (1-5farmer)
bull Effective interventions around improved croplivestock nutrition
bull Established unmet market need for product (Milk)
bull Greater numbers of farmers have ldquocommercialrdquo focus ndash will respond to
price signals
bull Huge productivity gains are feasible without concentrate usebull From 25 up to 10Ld
bull Age at first calving down from 4 to 25 years
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
MIXED SYSTEMS ndash WHAT DO WE KNOW
bull Livestock feeding is based on grazing + stover (maize wheat rice
sorghum) + small amounts of purchased feed (including concentrate)
bull Thus farm outputs highly interdependent Crop gt Livestock gt Manure
bull So low N soil content gt low crop yields+ poor quality stovergt poor animal
performance and low intakegt Low manure N (lt50 IPCC estimates) etc
bull Human food crops canrsquot be displaced for animal feed in a low productivity
environment
bull BUT Opportunity for WIN (Human) WIN (Animal) Win (environment)
scenario
bull Increasing Productivity SUSTAINABLY has positive effects on all farm
outputs
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
bull A strong positive and linear relationship between SPVS inclusion rate and LW change
Intake and Liveweight change of growing lambs fed increasing levels of SPVS ad libitum
y = 12568x - 3785Rsup2 = 09914
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
00 200 400 600
Relationship between DM inclusion rate of
SPVS silage in diet and Live weight change
(gd) in growing lambs receiving a basal diet
of maize stover
Variable Control
20
SPVS
40
SPVS
80
SPVS SEM
of SPVS as DM 00 75 177 563
Intake as fed 3335a 4085a 6163b 14655c 11836
DMI 3022a 3321a 4369b 5979c 3155
DMI LW 168 185 243 332
LW gain (gd) -413a -269a -125a 317b 692
FEEDING SWEET POTATO VINE SILAGE IMPROVES ANIMAL PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT DIVERTING RESOURCES FROM HUMAN FOOD PRODUCTION
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PASTURE LEGUMESbull Intercropping pasture legume (Desmodium ssp) with maize
bull Increases grain yield (150-300) (+Humans)
bull Controls parasites (Striga) (+ Humans)
bull Improve yield and quality (N content) of stover (+Animals)
bull Provides very high quality feed (up to 22CP) for ruminant livestock
(+Animals)
bull Increases soil C and N (+Environment)
bull Seems to improve water holding capacity
bull (Preliminary data only courtesy ICIPE)
bull WE KNOW THIS IS POSITIVE but we need to be able to quantify the
effects
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
SO WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGESbull JUST 2
1 We need to do measurements ndash of animal productivity of soils of
feeds ndash even of GHGs
bull We know we canrsquot trust models based on data from
developed economies
bull We need to know where we start from so that we can
measure where we get to
2 Getting the message out dissemination gt adoption
bull Farmers are (very) conservative
bull Knowledge about livestock is very poor
bull NGO fatigue
bull We work hard to collaborate with our partners
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
3 PASTORAL SYSTEMS WHAT CAN WE DO
bull LIMITED ENGAGEMENT AROUND LED (OTHER MAJOR WORKIBLI)
bull WHY LOW MP
bull LOTS OF LIVESTOCK but
bull FEW EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS AVAILABLE
bull POORLY DEVELOPED SUPPLY CHAINS AND LOW INTEREST IN
COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCK
bull ldquoPotentialrdquo exists but difficult to see how this can be realised
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 1IMPROVED PASTURE MANAGEMENT
bull Better management of pastures
(modified cell grazing) can
ndash decrease erosion and improve water
penetration
ndash Increase sustainable stocking rates
ndash Increase Soil C stocks (up to 2 of
biomass)
bull BUT unclear land tenure and communal
rights tend to encourage overgrazing
and make the required management
difficult to achieve
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
OPTION 2 ndash COMMODIFYING LIVESTOCKbull In the absence of any other change creating a strong supply chain that will
encourage the regular off-take of livestock at an equitable sale price would
greatly improve the productivity of land under pastoralist management
bull However it is difficult to conceive the conditions under which this would be
enthusiastically received
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
(Any Questions)
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)
wwwfeedthefuturegov
PARTNER LOGO GOES HERE (click slide master to add)